ELynah Forum

General Category => Hockey => Topic started by: amerks127 on December 10, 2009, 03:59:30 PM

Title: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: amerks127 on December 10, 2009, 03:59:30 PM
Found a link to this interesting article on the ECAC website concerning the league commissioners' views on D-1 hockey.  Forgive me for not providing a summary nor for an explicit reference to Cornell hockey.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=509264
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: Jim Hyla on December 10, 2009, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: amerks127Found a link to this interesting article on the ECAC website concerning the league commissioners' views on D-1 hockey.  Forgive me for not providing a summary nor for an explicit reference to Cornell hockey.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=509264
But this tells a lot.
QuoteWhat is your league's major 2-3-year goal?


"Enhance our league's financial situation to the benefit of our members," Hagwell said. "And ensure a smooth and successful transition to our new championship site in Atlantic City, New Jersey, (beginning in 2011.)"
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: billhoward on December 11, 2009, 02:03:36 PM
ECAC commissioner Hagswell says the short-term goal is "To have a team in our league win the national championship." That is, on the 21st anniversary of the last time an ECAC team won it, and as opposed to a 2-3 year goal.

Story says 10 D1 teams have dropped out in the past 20 years.
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: lynah80 on December 17, 2009, 12:43:22 AM
Is college hockey getting more dangerous?  

http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,17712/CommentaryNotSeeingtheForestfortheTrees.html

Someone should do a retrospective epidemiological study (if one hasn't been done already).
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: lynah80 on December 17, 2009, 01:01:50 AM
This is interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941297/
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: Trotsky on December 17, 2009, 08:51:49 AM
Quote from: lynah80This is interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941297/

Bottom line:

QuoteIn conclusion, these data indicate that the risk and rate of injury in intercollegiate athletics are relatively low (1 injury every 2 games and 1 injury every 5 practices for a team of 50 participants) and that most reported injuries do not result in substantial time loss (ie, they are minor-severity to moderate-severity injuries). Most importantly, these data highlight potentially modifiable factors that, if addressed through injury prevention initiatives, may be able to reduce injury rates in collegiate sports even further. Using the 4-step injury prevention model proposed by van Mechelen et al, 22 in which we (1) identify the problem, (2) establish etiology and mechanisms, (3) develop, evaluate, and implement interventions, and (4) reevaluate the effect via continued surveillance, the ISS is perfectly positioned to assist with the first and last steps of this process. The ISS can also be used to (1) guide informed decision making regarding issues such as appropriate medical care staffing and sport-specific safety, (2) identify naturally occurring injury rate peaks and valleys, (3) identify new emerging issues (eg, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections), and (4) evaluate "before" and "after" effectiveness of safety policy implementation. Because few evidence-based injury prevention programs currently exist specific to collegiate sports, the most critical need is to establish causes and mechanisms for the most burdensome injuries and to develop, evaluate, and implement injury prevention interventions over the next decade.
Title: Re: Assessing the state of the game in Division I
Post by: TimV on December 17, 2009, 12:41:46 PM
Quote from: lynah80This is interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941297/

Thanks, that was a great article.  The concussion data in Table 2 was most surprising to me - Football < mens ice hockey (same as women's soccer) << women's ice hockey (More than 2x football)